ILNews

Opinions June 23, 2011

June 23, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
Joseph E. Corcoran v. Bill Wilson, superintendent
07-2093, 07-2182
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, Judge Allen Sharp.
Civil. Reinstates and incorporates by reference the earlier opinion in Corcoran v. Buss to the extent that it reversed the District Court’s judgment granting habeas relief on the basis of the claimed Sixth Amendment violation; and affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that the Indiana courts did not mishandle the issue of his competence to waive post-conviction remedies. Remands to District Court to permit it to address Corcoran’s remaining grounds for habeas relief.

Spurlino Materials LLC v. National Labor Relations Board, et al.
Nos. 10-2875, 10-3049
Petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of order of the National Labor Relations Board.
Civil. Grants the National Labor Relations Board’s application for enforcement of its order against cross-petitioner Spurlino Materials. The NLRB adopted the reasoning of the administrative law judge to find Spurlino engaged in a variety of unfair labor practices and imposed remedial measures. Substantial evidence supports the board’s holding. Denies Spurlino’s cross-petition for review.

Indiana Supreme Court
J.M. v. M.A., et al.
20S04-1012-CV-676
Civil. Reverses trial court decision to set aside the paternity affidavit and remands to give J.M. the opportunity, as agreed to at oral argument, to challenge the paternity affidavit in the manner outlined in Indiana Code.

Elmer D. Baker v. State of Indiana
17S04-1009-CR-500
Criminal. Adopts the reasoning of the California Supreme Court and holds that the state may in its discretion designate a specific act or acts on which it relies to prove a particular charge. If the state decides not to so designate, then the jurors should be instructed that in order to convict the defendant, they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all of the acts described by the victim and included within the time period charged. Finds Baker did not demonstrate that the instruction error in his case so prejudiced him that he was denied a fair trial.

Lamar M. Crawford v. State of Indiana
49S05-1106-CR-370
Criminal. Affirms denial of two of Crawford’s requests for certain footage relating to his murder investigation for an in camera review. Crawford’s requests did not pass the first step of the three-step test used to determine the discoverability of information in criminal cases.

Crisis Connection, Inc. v. Ronald K. Fromme
19S05-1012-CR-678
Criminal. Reverses trial court order that Crisis Connection turn over counseling records for in camera review before turning them over to Fromme. The records are protected by the victim advocate privilege and Fromme does not have a constitutional right to an in camera review of Crisis Connection’s records. Remands for further proceedings.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mickey Cundiff v. State of Indiana
31A05-1008-CR-607
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Cundiff was not entitled to a speedy trial pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(B) despite his incarceration on an unrelated cause. A defendant must be incarcerated on the pending charges to be entitled to the benefits of the 70-day speedy trial rule.

Save Our School: Elmhurst High School v. Fort Wayne Community Schools, et al.
02A04-1012-PL-746
Civil plenary. Affirms grant of motion to dismiss Save Our School’s complaint for declaratory judgment against Fort Wayne Community Schools seeking to force Elmhurst High School to remain open. FWCS's decision to close Elmhurst is not an action subject to judicial review as potentially violating the Indiana Constitution.

Elliott McKinley Montgomery v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1012-CR-616
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder in the perpetration of robbery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of A.H. and J.H.; Jo.H. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
89A04-1011-JT-706
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

James Hatala v. Sally Hatala (NFP)
64A03-1011-DR-555
Domestic relation. Affirms in part the dissolution decree and reverses in part. Remands to revalue the proceeds from the condemnation settlements at zero, to recalculate its division of the parties’ marital assets, to determine what effect, if any, this recalculation has on the alleged intended 50-50 division of the marital estate, to recalculate what amount of Sally Hatala’s attorney fees, if any, James Hatala should pay, and to amend the divorce decree accordingly.

Ryan T. McMullen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
27A02-1009-CR-1165
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for Class A felony possession of cocaine and Class D felony possession of marijuana.

Jack Edwards, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
39A05-1006-CR-395
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of murder and one count of attempted murder.

Robert M. Richardson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
48A04-1010-CR-654
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation.

SB Hospitality, LLC, et al. v. R.S. Elliott Specialty Supply, Inc. (NFP)
71A05-1008-PL-702
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of SB Hospitality and Gita Patel’s motion to withdraw admissions and the grant of summary judgment for R.S. Elliott Specialty Supply.

KJE, LLC v. RAC Holdings, Inc., and Rex Carroll (NFP)
02A03-1102-PL-52
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment for Rex Carroll and RAC Holdings on the issue of whether RAC breached a franchise agreement.

Robert L. Frank, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
17A04-1012-CR-801
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor and Class D felony sexual battery.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of Z.E., et al.; S.E. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
79A04-1101-JT-27
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Paternity of T.F.-W.; D.F. v. J.W. (NFP)
49A02-1009-JP-976
Juvenile. Affirms grant of legal custody of T.F.-W. to child’s biological father.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT